The Cultural Gutter

taking trash seriously

"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." -- Oscar Wilde

Author’s Cut

James Schellenberg
Posted September 9, 2010

avatar-blue-small.jpgThe director’s cut is a familiar term in the world of film, but an equivalent “author’s cut” in the realm of
books is not a widespread notion. Why might that be?

I’m thinking of this because I recently saw Avatar, the re-release that is, with an extra 9 minutes of footage. For reasons which I’m a little embarrassed to discuss now, I saw Avatar in lowly 2D on its original release, and I pretty much hated it. I thought the story was terrible, and that the special effects were… ok, but not much of a defence against how the story was hurting my brain.

My general stance on the whole idea of a director’s cut is pretty simple: the deleted
scenes were deleted for a reason. In other words, the meddling folks who force all these creative prima donna types to cut their movies down to an acceptable running length for theatrical release are largely correct. Now, there are some obvious exceptions to this: for example, Blade Runner functions better as a movie in the Director’s Cut. The example is muddied by the fact that Ridley Scott keeps messing about with the movie, and that you have to watch it pretty closely to follow everything if your first experience of the movie is the Director’s Cut. So I’ll rephrase: Blade Runner functions better as a work of art in the Director’s Cut.

avatar-blue-big.jpgAn exception to my exception is James Cameron’s extended versions of Aliens, which took an already legendary movie, legendary mainly for its ferocious action scenes, and fleshed out the story. The movie now works for people who don’t particularly care for action movies or monster features, etc (trust me, I’ve seen it happen). You can’t really say that about any of the imitators of Aliens.

So what happened when I rewatched Avatar, this time in 3D, and this time with some extra padding on the story? I have to admit, I now see why people got a little crazy over the effects in this movie: the 3D is way, way better than any other 3D movie I’ve seen. To quantify, let’s say that it’s 100x better and leave it at that. The story still stinks (unobtainium, white man’s burden, and so forth), but the bits and pieces flow together much more smoothly and I didn’t mind the longer running time.

This brings me back around to the idea of an author’s cut, and why it’s not a widespread notion. I think the explanation is pretty basic and it comes down to cold hard cash. It costs a lot of money to make nine extra minutes of Avatar footage, and Cameron got to add it because the other 160+ minutes made a boatload of dollars. Yes, I know that cost pressures exist in the publishing industry, and, yes, I know there are lots of books that have been split in two for cost reasons, but the scale of money involved is radically different.

Generally speaking, I think books get released in a state that’s pretty close to how their author intended; if that’s not the case, then the author hardly ever gets a chance to correct the situation. If a setting or character becomes popular, a sequel seems to me to be more likely than a re-done version of the original story. Additionally, movies generally have lots of extra footage lying around, and the rise of the DVD special feature gave space for the extra bits and bobs.

I can think of two examples of an author’s cut in genre books: Stephen King’s The Stand and Robert Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land. And I won’t go into many details about either one, because I’ve never had the gumption to pick them up! I ended up reading the “butchered” versions long ago and can’t summon the energy to do some kind of textual comparison. By reading those comparisons online, I can see that longer version of The Stand is an especial treat for the fans, and I’m not one of their company. Similarly, Heinlein’s book.

Some published books feel like there already was an author’s cut – I’m looking at you, late-series Harry Potter. Again, fans don’t mind, but in the case of Harry Potter, there’s no “theatrical release” to go back to! If you’re grumpy with the excessive wordiness that Rowling used to wrap up the series, you’re out of luck.

Update (December 2010): Wertzone has been tracking the developments regarding the republication of the Chung Kuo saga, and I have to say this is a pretty clear example of an author’s cut. What was once an eight-book series is getting two new prequels and the addition of 500 000 words (I’m unclear whether that’s counting the prequels – the original 8 books are getting spruced up as well and divided into two separate volumes apiece), to bulk up to a twenty-book series!  (With another 2 titles carved out somehow?) I’ve read the original versions, and I remember three things: a saga that was already long and complicated, tons of sexual violence, and a terrible ending that went way beyond “WTF!?” territory into comprehensive self-sabotage. I’m not sure if the extra verbiage will help fix any of those, unfortunately.

Comments

2 Responses to “Author’s Cut”

  1. NefariousDrO
    September 9th, 2010 @ 9:46 pm

    I’ve always thought that these “director’s cuts” are really just a blatant attempt to squeeze a few more dollars out of a movie and it’s fans. Mostly the fans. Let’s face it, how many people really are going to go and watch a re-release of a movie they already saw at full price again? Only the dedicated fans (who probably did that during the initial release as well) And, as you pointed out, the extra footage is already shot, so it’s really just a matter of doing a bit of editing and possibly tweaking the soundtrack a bit. With today’s studio capabilities they don’t need to re-compose music, even, so it’s once again an editing function. Still expensive in some cases I’m sure, but they get to charge full price again, and the fans gladly fork over.

  2. Carol Borden
    September 10th, 2010 @ 3:03 pm

    yes, i agree there’s certainly a mercenary component to it. but i think the results are a little more complicated than simply milked fans. as james notes, films are expensive and largely a group endeavor, unlike books. if it weren’t cheaper to do and a potential money-maker for studios and producers, directors would not be able to fix things that nervous studios pushed on them–like the ill-conceived narration in Blade Runner.
    and, as a fan of asian films, i’m very pleased that multiple versions of film have become available on dvd, given how different versions of a film are distributed to different markets. international, 5-hour version of Red Cliff? yes, please. i’d much rather see that than the 3 hour north american heavily edited cut. at least knowing there are multiple cuts of movies like Blade Runner or Avatar makes it easier for an audience to realize there are often multiple versions of foreign language film.
    For me a bigger problem is that sometimes a film or book is better when it’s been cut. but who’s going to be able to edit stephen king when everything he writes is successful?

Leave a Reply





  • Support The Gutter

  • The Book!

  • Of Note Elsewhere

    Andrew Nette has a pair of interesting pieces on pulp you might be interested in. First, he writes about “the New Pulp” and a bit about Fifty Shades of Gray in “Fifty Shades of Pulp.” Then he writes about pulp and literacy and furthering social advancement in “Pulp and Circumstance.”  “Most people view pulp as either exploitative lowbrow culture or highly collectable retro artefact. Yet pulp has a secret history which Rabinowitz’s book uncovers. Her central thesis is that cheap, mass-produced pulp novels not only provided entertainment and cheap titillating thrills, but also brought modernism to the American people, democratising reading and, in the process, furthering culture and social enlightenment.”

    ~

    The Projection Booth interviews actor Ed Asner.

    ~

    Transcript from BAFTA’s tribute to director Johnnie To, “Johnnie To: A Life In Pictures.” It’s a great interview with To about his films and process. “Like when I made The Mission I didn’t have a script. It was 1999 and I didn’t have any money so we went to Taiwan and they gave us very little money to hurry up and make a film, so without any script we just started making it. And after 19 days we made the film.” (Thanks to the Heroic Sisterhood!)

    ~

    A gallery of sweet geeky art from Native American artist, Jeffrey Veregge. “My origins are not supernatural, nor have they been enhanced by radioactive spiders. I am simply a Native American artist and writer whose creative mantra in best summed up with a word from my tribe’s own language as: ‘taʔčaʔx̣ʷéʔtəŋ,’ which means ‘get into trouble.'”

    ~

    John Reppion continues his series on English magic and Jonathan Strange And Mr. Norrell. Next up, “Away With The Fairies.”

    ~

    At the Mary-Sue, Ana Mardoll reviews Vertigo’s new Furiosa comic, which theoretically presents Imperator Furiosa’s backstory by trying to make Mad Max: Fury Road lazier and shittier. “We need to talk about the Mad Max: Fury Road Furiosa #1 comic and how awful it is. Huge content notes on this post, like, in big block capitals and neon letters because this issue is triggery and terrible, and really aptly illustrates just how awful MMFR could have been if it were made without intentionally setting aside lazy (and terrible) narratives about women and rape in order to be better than that. Also, I would honestly recommend going into this post with the mindset that this comic is some kind of terrible non-canon spinoff, because I don’t want to ruin MMFR for anyone.” (Thanks, Century Scully Ono!)

    ~

  • Spilling into Twitter

  • Obsessive?

    Then you might be interested in knowing you can subscribe to our RSS feed, find us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter or Tumblr.

    -------

  • Weekly Notifications

  • What We’re Talking About

  • Thanks To

    No Media Kings hosts this site, and Wordpress autoconstructs it.

  • %d bloggers like this: